Gen. Petraeus testimony today and the fallacies in reasoning

General Petraeus testified today that the cost to the war while expensive has been worth it. He also said he was not in agreement with Al-Maliki about the military actions against Al-Sadr's militia in Basra, as in his view the planning was not done adequately and that he was only informed a day before the actions were taken. The big question for me for the day is why is it that that Al-Sadr's Militia doesn't need similar training that other people in Iraq seem to need? Can anyone explain that? Is it because Iran is doing their training? If so, can't we outsource this job to Iran? I jest. :) But see my point. The arguments don't make sense by our Generals and political figures.

Ambassador Crocker thought that we had a strategic interest in being there (for the long haul). He said their was going to be a Status of Forces agreement between Iraq and the U.S. signed by President Bush in a bilateral agreement between the two countries.

There is a reasoning by both Petraeus and Crocker that suggests we can't and shouldn't leave Iraq as chaos would ensue and the gains made would be reversible. That is the same kind of argument that went on with ending the Vietnam war. In that war many suggested that the entire area of Asia would fall under Communist rule if and when we left. It didn't! Today Vietnam is a trading partner and it took less than 25 years to do it. Looking forward, I don't see Iraq being any different, UNLESS WE STAY! As the demonstrator said at the hearings, "Bring them home! Bring them home!"